Kings Gambit Declined: Mafia Defense

So, I was experimenting the Kings Gambit against a computer. This opening came up.

I just have a question, is this opening any good? I like to decline Kings Gambits, and I am exploring ways to do so. From what I can see, The c Pawn is covered by the black squared Bishop AND you have a strong foothold if you choose to get the Knight on b1 to d4.

i could be wrong, though.

Any thoughts on this opening?

Jared

2.......c5 looks unusual,  especially when that square is occupied by the Bishop in one of the main lines that goes 2.....Bc5  with the idea of preventing White from castling on K-side.    If 3 fxe ???   Black always has 3......Qh4+ winning.

it looks weird. I might try it sometime

I think I can see the advantage of this opening after I tried it against a level 4 computer. (Thats low, I know, but I have ADHD. It was an experiment anyway.)

That computer played poorly, granted, but at least I got a decent strategy for the Kings Gambit Declined: Mafia Defense.

No.

Thanks for the input. @pfren, @PSV-1988 would you mind explaining why it is no good? I'm just curious.

I think i agree with pfren.

Here is my reasoning. First I don't like stonewall-like foramations at all. They only look solid, but the weakness of chain base ( in Your game d6), and the hole ( in game on d5) seem to mean more then any solidness of the pawn chain.

Besides, here white can easily destroy the chain with fxe5 which in game IMHO has came too late. White should have played either 5. fxe5, or 5. Nf3 (...) 6. fxe5.

Note that supporting the formation with f pawn is not a good idea - It is different to stonewall - like formations in 1.d4 openings, where the formation is supported by c pawn.

This is among the dumbest things I've ever seen. There's no reason to explain why 2... c5 against the King's Gambit is completely stupid. 

+1 There are so many ways to get a good position against the KG and yet people will still not play any of them -_-

You know what? You guys are right. After further experimenting, I conclude this is not a good opening.

Thanks for teaching me,

Jared

 What do you expect from an opening with this name. It is almost a rhetorical question.

I believe it is named this way because it is a King's opening, c5 is a Sicilian move, and who are the real Kings over there? Anyway like the Mafia, the opening can be treacherous. A few times my opponents were quiet for up to a whole minute after encountering this opening - as if so intimidated by suddenly facing the barrel of a loaded gun. However, ultimately at the professional level it is no good. Compare it to the Jalalabad.

Sub to Tuckers Tricks on youtube

It seems pretty dangerous for black. White can play Bc4 as some point, fxe5 if you don't play exf4 at some point, and castle kingside. c5 doesn't do much to counteract white's plan to attack f7 or counterattack against white's king or in the center. You can't play slow moves against a gambit.

i transpose in to it in the sicilian defence after the mcdonnel attack

i cant say its "horrible". Giving white a 0.5 advantage is hardly terrible. it at least makes some sense, to clamp on dark squares, and possibly leaving open exf4 where d4 is somewhat dissuaded.... It's just, they are so many ways to get a good game vs king's gambit, from classical , to early d5, to accepted d6-g5 to even cunningham, why would you play something this crooked which doesnt seem to diminish white's attacking chances one bit?

its the kind of opening doomed to obscurity not because its so bad, but because they are 6+ better richer healthier ways to counter your opponent.

the name is gangsta, idk what you talking about. does bogo-indian, or pterodactyl or beefeater variation sound more respectable to you? Heck, hyper-accelerated dragon sounds like something a weaboo would say, not the name of a respected black defense.

I have NEVER seen this that I recall

the natural 3.Nf3 has better stats no matter what black replies at the amateur level, but if you really study it hard, you'll know what to do better than your opponents.

I find I really hate quick Be7s that take my castling rights

I love it when I play gambits and opponents respond with slow or irrelevant moves like this. It allows white to get a strong attack, because it doesn't do much to counteract the potential attack and threats.

There are also several reasonable ways to decline the gambit, such as d5, Bc5, d6, and Qh4+.